Your answer is determined largely by how much credence you give to the Unitary Executive Theory prominently advocated by lawyers in the former administration like David Addington, and former Justice Dept. lawyer John Yoo.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, the Gulf War etc..... say they don't need to declare war for a military action to take place.

Uh....what?

Iraq - Congressional Authorization (HJ Res 114)

Afghanistan -- Congressional Authorization (SJ Res 23)

Vietnam -- Authorized (Gulf of Tonkin resolution; though essentially everyone agrees that we intermeddled more than we should've before the resolution was passed)

Grenada's interesting in that you're right - no prior authorization was sought. However, the 'immediate threat' language applied there as US Citizens were seeking immediate assistance from the US Government. Remember, there were a bunch of US Students down there seeking rescue by the US Military; there's a pretty good chance they were going to be dead in a day or so with the attacks going on down there. So he could use the War Powers Act and the imminent threat protections pretty easily in Grenada; it clearly doesn't apply here.

Korea has always been an interesting one because I'm inclined to agree with you that Congressional approval was needed. But at least with Korea (and Desert Storm), we were backing the UN. That's why I haven't really blistered Obama for Libya - if the United States is going to pretend that the UN Security Counsel has any true teeth whatsoever, then it needs to be prepared to back the UN's play. That's what they did in Korea, Desert Storm and Libya.

Here, however, The UN wants nothing to do with this mess.

This absolutely needs Congressional Approval. And the hell of it is, I think he'd get it. But he doesn't want to have to make some of his buddies that are running for re-election in 2014 go on record as approving the use of force against a non-combatant nation.

Your answer is determined largely by how much credence you give to the Unitary Executive Theory prominently advocated by lawyers in the former administration like David Addington, and former Justice Dept. lawyer John Yoo.

Not just that. The answer is also determined, mostly from unConstitutional precedents post WWII which was due to our membership in the UN who calls for police actions aka "use of military force" and under the poorly interpreted UN Participation Act which does call for each country to use it's own laws for such involvement.

Under the UN there were defense pacts such as SEATO which was used to authorize military action in Vietnam. Reagan's Grenada could be seen as practicing the Monroe Doctrine and immediate threat, and was short which is okay. The WoT has not been short but long and very aggressive.

There’s a lot of confusion, on right and left alike, regarding the president’s war powers under the Constitution. Here’s an overview of the most common claims on behalf of such powers, along with replies to these claims.

[Among the claims are the following:]

1) “The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”

2) “John Adams made war on France without consulting Congress.”

3) “Jefferson acted unilaterally against the Barbary pirates.”

4) “Presidents have sent men into battle hundreds of times without getting congressional authorization.” This argument, like so much propaganda, originated with the U.S. government itself.

5) The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the power to commit troops anywhere he likes for 90 days.” The War Powers Resolution is incoherent.

6) “If the United Nations authorizes military action, the president does not need to consult Congress.” The UN Charter itself notes that the Security Council’s commitment of member nations’ troops must be authorized by these nations’ “respective constitutional processes.”

7) “Congress may have some power over major wars, but lesser uses of force are reserved to the president alone.” The evidence from the early republic contradicts this claim.

8) “The Vesting Clause grants the president a wide array of unspecified powers pertaining to foreign affairs.” You won’t hear this argument in many casual discussions of presidential war powers, but since Yoo cited it in a draft memorandum he wrote for the Department of Defense in early 2002, it’s worth a brief reply. (Again, a lengthier reply can be found in Who Killed the Constitution?)

In short, there is no constitutional support for the presidential war powers claimed by mainstream left and right. That’s why they usually wind up claiming that the congressional power to declare war is “obsolete.” They can’t deny its existence, so they deny the document in which it is contained. And that means they lose the argument.

This is true fantasyland stuff. If we'd just stayed a little bit longer...

And seriously, you're comparing Iraq with Germany, Japan and South Korea?
There are many reasons that is a ridiculous comparison, with probably the main one being that those three countries didn't have centuries-old religious and ethnic hostilities and civil wars to deal with. Two of those countries were literally divided in two. And South Korea--we're still protecting it 60 years later. Is that the model you had in mind for Iraq?

No, not just a little bit longer. As long as it takes. Most likely a decade or two, but more if necessary. It's not like our heavy footprint would have had to remain for the entire duration. You're delusional if you think we don't have the capability to help Iraq go through these modernization pains. What we don't have is the national will.

BTW, what do you call a fight that splits Korea into two separate countries if it wasn't a civil war? You can always draw distinctions, but that doesn't mean there aren't similarities that are equally important. Go ahead and ignore them so you can focus the blame on Bush and the Iraqis instead of yourself.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

Your answer is determined largely by how much credence you give to the Unitary Executive Theory prominently advocated by lawyers in the former administration like David Addington, and former Justice Dept. lawyer John Yoo.

No it isn't. I think you misunderstand the unitary executive theory.

It has to do with whether or not the Congress can tie the president's hands when it comes to control over his executive branch departments. It's not really about the scope of his foreign policy powers or where the line is drawn between the Congressional power of declaring war and the Executive power of commanding the military.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

No, not just a little bit longer. As long as it takes. Most likely a decade or two, but more if necessary. It's not like our heavy footprint would have had to remain for the entire duration. You're delusional if you think we don't have the capability to help Iraq go through these modernization pains. What we don't have is the national will.